SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA Social democracy in Russia took on a different form than it had throughout the rest of Western Europe. Faced with obstacles unique to Russia, as needs must, the party shifted, morphed, and evolved to efficiently cope with the problems it faced. The primary issues faced by Russia which cemented its foregone disparities with other nations were, the already established form of government, the large agrarian class and resistance to industrialization, and communication barriers among the various social classes.
Unlike other countries in which Social Democracy was prevalent, Russia was controlled by a Czarist Regime. The majority of other countries involved in the Social Democratic movement already had parliamentary institutions in place. Their main concerns were simply building up various Social Democratic parties, increasing participation in the political struggle for parliamentary power, and getting the representative institutions in their hands.[1] In short, they sought reform; a change in the ideological conceptions of their government. Russia required revolution. It not only sought change on a phrenic level, but a structural one as well.
In addition to the difficulties posed by the Czarist Regime, the economic institutions of Russia also created problems. Industrialization in Russia did not take place until 1861, much later than it had throughout the rest of Europe. This technological advancement coincided with the emancipation of the serfs. This increased the number of individuals seeking solidarity in the quickly changing economic and social structures of Russia. This change caused many people to be resistant to capitalism as it threatened the economic structures already in place.[2] “The great need was to oppose the growth of capitalism, which was rapidly destroying the old village structure, and to create among the peasants a nucleus of Socialist sentiment to give coherence and direction to the mass discontents of the rural population.”[3]
Bridging the intellectual gap between the classes was another difficulty faced by Russia. There were essentially no social contracts and any examination of the political or governmental status quo was threatened by the severely repressive government. The local peasant uprisings that took place did so with little participation by the intellectuals and discussion amongst the political elite/leaders did so in a social vacuum.[4] The intellectuals were disconnected from the workers, whose participation was necessary for success. It was essentially like trying to function without a neck. The head though part of the body, had no support.
Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky
Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky (1842-1904) was a prominent socialist writer and advocate in Russia. He wrote for the legally published Otechestvenniya Zapiski “Memoirs of the Fatherland,” and Russian Fortune, as well as the illegally published journal Narodnaya Volya, “Peoples’ Will.”[5] Mikhailovsky’s philosophies rejected the notion of social classes as objective factors in social development. Apart from the people that make up social groups, groups have no objective reality. He also emphasized the role of the individual and felt that modern institutions sought to rob people of their inherent individual sovereignty.[6]
Mikhailovsky’s doctrines produced the idea that “the best hopes for Socialism in Russia lay not in the growth of an industrial structure modeled on Western Capitalism, but in the creation of an elite of revolutionaries bent on leaping directly to agrarian socialism without any intervening stage…or…capitalization of agriculture itself.”[7] Mainly espoused by the Narodnik party, Mikhailovsky’s philosophies became the cornerstone for their movement. The essential beliefs were: retaining peasant property, but transforming it by revitalizing the communal institutions of the peasant village, encourage peasant co-operation with the intellectual elite, and bridging the social gap by finding representative among the people that could explain and promote Narodnik philosophies.
Another influential writer and political theorist was Peter Lavrov (1823-1900). A great promoter of Narodnik philosophies Lavrov emphasized the natural tendency of humans to seek solidarity and from this the human capacity to take this solidarity and transform it into co-operative units effective in challenging and changing previously imposed traditions and rituals.[8]Lavrov originally favored a gradual approach to change, but when Czarist regime “closed all avenues to peaceful agitation,” his views changed. Though Lavrov did not take part in Narodnaya Volya during its campaign against the Czar, he was influential in rebuilding the party following the Czar’s assassination.[9] Another leading Narodnik philosophist was economist Nikolai F. Danielson (1844-1918). Danielson argued that capitalism was destroying traditional peasant communities but would ultimately be ineffective in establishing itself as a superior economic power because of the narrow limits of the Russian economy and its inferiority to the rest of Europe as an industrial producer. “Industrialization would act only as a disintegrating force…the best hope lay in this disintegration leading to a predominantly peasant revolution and to rebuilding of the Russian economy on the shaken, but still undestroyed foundations of the village commune.”[10]
Beginning as a Narodnik, Gergy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1857-1918) constituted himself the principal Russian interpreter of Marxism. He was categorically opposed to the philosophies touted by Lavrov and Mikhailovsky and sought to discredit such ideas in much of his writings.[11]
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Martov, who became an influential Menshevik leader (along with Plekhanov), advocated for the joining together of a network of Trade Unions which would work to weaken the Bourgeoisie government making it possible for a socialist revolution to take place. During the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, Martov argued against Lenin and advocated for loose party membership that was vastly more inclusive.
Trotsky, like Martov was initially against Lenin and the Bolsheviks seeking to advance a far more inclusive and less strict party.[12] Trotskycontinually sought to reconcile the antagonistic factions but ultimately sided with Lenin, admitting that tighter party constriction was ultimately the best course of action.
Social Democrats became “united against Narodniks in the belief that Russia was destined to go through the process of industrial development and that there were no valid reasons, objective or subjective, why capitalist industrialism should fail to take root and grow in Russian soil.”[13] The movement, however, was not in agreement about the speed at which change should take place, the part to be played by the intellectuals, and of course, the roles of the particular leaders. There were essentially two revolutions in their mind: the overthrow of the czarist regime, and an economic revolution.[14]
From the 1860’s to 1905 the Social Democratic Movement slowly but surely grew in both size and prominence, leading up to the Revolution of 1905 and followed by another revolution in 1917, upon which it established itself as the leading political party in Russia.The 1860’s saw rapid capitalist development, financed largely from French sources where Socialist industry was prospering. This development fueled the Social Democratic movement, further separating the party from its original Narodnik philosophies.[15]
The 1870’s and 1880’s saw a rise in Trade Unions (though ultimately broken up by police) and increase in the number of strikes. Between 1881-1886 there were over forty-eight strikes involving some 80,000 workers. The largest of the Strikes was at the Morozov textile mill. Soldiers were called in to suppress the strike and over 600 arrests were made. Strikes during this time were mainly protesting wage-cuts brought on by the depression that set in at the end of the 1870’s. There was little focus on political changes on a large scale.[16]
In the 1890’s the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic party was assembled at Pskov. Only nine delegates were present, most of who were arrested shortly after the Congress convened. The Congress drafted a manifesto which asserted the right of every nation to self-determination.[17]
From 1900-04 the party sought to increase the power of Trade Unions in an attempt to include and motivate the proletariat.[18]This, however, was met with great resistance by the Czarist government. Police would often provoke disturbances in order to arrest agitators. The government encouraged Trade Unions which functioned under police auspices. In 1902 General Zubatov, founded the Society for the Mutual Help of Workers in the Engineering Industry, this became known as Zubatovism. “Zubatovism and the more extreme methods employed by the police…stimulated the desire of the Socialists to organize real Trade Unions in order to win the workers away from the police sponsored bodies.”[19]
In 1903 the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party convened. It was at this time that the rift between the two factions of the party became apparent. The party was divided, primarily, over the issue of party membership. Lenin and Plekhanov on one side argued for strict party membership with control vested in the educated elite, while Martov and Trotsky advocated for less stringent requirements, only requiring material support and personal participation to make someone a member of the party.[20]
In October 1905, Nicholas II drafted the October Manifesto. Though conceding to free speech and a truly representative government, the party and the populace were skeptical and on January 9th marched on the Czar’s winter. The unarmed procession was fired upon resulting in hundreds of casualties.[21] Following the revolt the first Duma, (representative body) was formed. Later in the year the Third Party Congress convened and the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was formalized. At the Fourth Party Congress the Bolsheviks formed the “Bolshevik Center” which was the governing body of the Bolshevik faction. The Mensheviks, trying to match their opponent blow for blow aligned themselves with other minority groups, increasing their size and making themselves the majority, albeit a less influential one. From 1905-1917 four Dumas were formed. Each was relatively short lived and ultimately exercised
Bolshevik Symbol
little power. During this period the various factions of the Social Democratic Party tried to reconcile, but such endeavors were ultimately unsuccessful. Though the party was growing in power and influence the start of WWI halted its expansion. Though briefly disbanded the party was well established in matters of membership, leadership and sound political philosophies, enabling its eventual rise in power to be swift and sustaining.
----
[1] G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought Vol. III, Part I: The Second International 1889-1914 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1960), 392. [2] Mortimer Chambers et al., The Western Experience 9th ed. Vol. II: Since the 16th Century (Boston; McGraw Hill, 2007), 728. [3] G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought Vol. III, Part I: The Second International 1889-1914 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1960), 395. [4] Cole, 394. [5] Narodniks, the group that sponsored the paper was responsible for the assignation of Alexander II in 1881. Narodnik philosophies used Mikhailovsky’s emphasis on the creative role of the individual to justify acts of terrorism. [5] G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought Vol. III, Part I: The Second International 1889-1914 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1960), 404. [6] Cole, 398. [7] Cole, 404. [8] Cole, 407. [9] Cole, 405. [10] Cole, 411. [11] Cole, 415. [12] Vladimir Illich Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution(Peking;Foreign Languages Press,1965),37. [13] Cole, 424. [14] Cole, 425. [15] Cole, 417. [16] Cole, 418. [17] Cole, 421. [18] Vladimir Ilich Lenin,The Tasks of The Proletariat in our Revolution(London:Martin Lawrence, 1932),13. [19] Cole, 427-428. [20] Cole, 435-440. [21] Mortimer Chambers et al., The Western Experience 9th ed. Vol. II: Since the 16th Century (Boston; McGraw Hill, 2007), 864.
BACK TO SOCIAL DEMOCRACYSOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA
Social democracy in Russia took on a different form than it had throughout the rest of Western Europe. Faced with obstacles unique to Russia, as needs must, the party shifted, morphed, and evolved to efficiently cope with the problems it faced. The primary issues faced by Russia which cemented its foregone disparities with other nations were, the already established form of government, the large agrarian class and resistance to industrialization, and communication barriers among the various social classes.
Unlike other countries in which Social Democracy was prevalent, Russia was controlled by a Czarist Regime. The majority of other countries involved in the Social Democratic movement already had parliamentary institutions in place. Their main concerns were simply building up various Social Democratic parties, increasing participation in the political struggle for parliamentary power, and getting the representative institutions in their hands.[1] In short, they sought reform; a change in the ideological conceptions of their government. Russia required revolution. It not only sought change on a phrenic level, but a structural one as well.
In addition to the difficulties posed by the Czarist Regime, the economic institutions of Russia also created problems. Industrialization in Russia did not take place until 1861, much later than it had throughout the rest of Europe. This technological advancement coincided with the emancipation of the serfs. This increased the number of individuals seeking solidarity in the quickly changing economic and social structures of Russia. This change caused many people to be resistant to capitalism as it threatened the economic structures already in place.[2] “The great need was to oppose the growth of capitalism, which was rapidly destroying the old village structure, and to create among the peasants a nucleus of Socialist sentiment to give coherence and direction to the mass discontents of the rural population.”[3]
Bridging the intellectual gap between the classes was another difficulty faced by Russia. There were essentially no social contracts and any examination of the political or governmental status quo was threatened by the severely repressive government. The local peasant uprisings that took place did so with little participation by the intellectuals and discussion amongst the political elite/leaders did so in a social vacuum.[4] The intellectuals were disconnected from the workers, whose participation was necessary for success. It was essentially like trying to function without a neck. The head though part of the body, had no support.
Mikhailovsky’s doctrines produced the idea that “the best hopes for Socialism in Russia lay not in the growth of an industrial structure modeled on Western Capitalism, but in the creation of an elite of revolutionaries bent on leaping directly to agrarian socialism without any intervening stage…or…capitalization of agriculture itself.”[7] Mainly espoused by the Narodnik party, Mikhailovsky’s philosophies became the cornerstone for their movement. The essential beliefs were: retaining peasant property, but transforming it by revitalizing the communal institutions of the peasant village, encourage peasant co-operation with the intellectual elite, and bridging the social gap by finding representative among the people that could explain and promote Narodnik philosophies.
Another influential writer and political theorist was Peter Lavrov (1823-1900). A great promoter of Narodnik philosophies Lavrov emphasized the natural tendency of humans to seek solidarity and from this the human capacity to take this solidarity and transform it into co-operative units effective in challenging and changing previously imposed traditions and rituals.[8] Lavrov originally favored a gradual approach to change, but when Czarist regime “closed all avenues to peaceful agitation,” his views changed. Though Lavrov did not take part in Narodnaya Volya during its campaign against the Czar, he was influential in rebuilding the party following the Czar’s assassination.[9]
Another leading Narodnik philosophist was economist Nikolai F. Danielson (1844-1918). Danielson argued that capitalism was destroying traditional peasant communities but would ultimately be ineffective in establishing itself as a superior economic power because of the narrow limits of the Russian economy and its inferiority to the rest of Europe as an industrial producer. “Industrialization would act only as a disintegrating force…the best hope lay in this disintegration leading to a predominantly peasant revolution and to rebuilding of the Russian economy on the shaken, but still undestroyed foundations of the village commune.”[10]
Beginning as a Narodnik, Gergy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1857-1918) constituted himself the principal Russian interpreter of Marxism. He was categorically opposed to the philosophies touted by Lavrov and Mikhailovsky and sought to discredit such ideas in much of his writings.[11]
Trotsky, like Martov was initially against Lenin and the Bolsheviks seeking to advance a far more inclusive and less strict party.[12] Trotskycontinually sought to reconcile the antagonistic factions but ultimately sided with Lenin, admitting that tighter party constriction was ultimately the best course of action.
Social Democrats became “united against Narodniks in the belief that Russia was destined to go through the process of industrial development and that there were no valid reasons, objective or subjective, why capitalist industrialism should fail to take root and grow in Russian soil.”[13] The movement, however, was not in agreement about the speed at which change should take place, the part to be played by the intellectuals, and of course, the roles of the particular leaders. There were essentially two revolutions in their mind: the overthrow of the czarist regime, and an economic revolution.[14]
From the 1860’s to 1905 the Social Democratic Movement slowly but surely grew in both size and prominence, leading up to the Revolution of 1905 and followed by another revolution in 1917, upon which it established itself as the leading political party in Russia. The 1860’s saw rapid capitalist development, financed largely from French sources where Socialist industry was prospering. This development fueled the Social Democratic movement, further separating the party from its original Narodnik philosophies.[15]
The 1870’s and 1880’s saw a rise in Trade Unions (though ultimately broken up by police) and increase in the number of strikes. Between 1881-1886 there were over forty-eight strikes involving some 80,000 workers. The largest of the Strikes was at the Morozov textile mill. Soldiers were called in to suppress the strike and over 600 arrests were made. Strikes during this time were mainly protesting wage-cuts brought on by the depression that set in at the end of the 1870’s. There was little focus on political changes on a large scale.[16]
In the 1890’s the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic party was assembled at Pskov. Only nine delegates were present, most of who were arrested shortly after the Congress convened. The Congress drafted a manifesto which asserted the right of every nation to self-determination.[17]
From 1900-04 the party sought to increase the power of Trade Unions in an attempt to include and motivate the proletariat.[18] This, however, was met with great resistance by the Czarist government. Police would often provoke disturbances in order to arrest agitators. The government encouraged Trade Unions which functioned under police auspices. In 1902 General Zubatov, founded the Society for the Mutual Help of Workers in the Engineering Industry, this became known as Zubatovism. “Zubatovism and the more extreme methods employed by the police…stimulated the desire of the Socialists to organize real Trade Unions in order to win the workers away from the police sponsored bodies.”[19]
In 1903 the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party convened. It was at this time that the rift between the two factions of the party became apparent. The party was divided, primarily, over the issue of party membership. Lenin and Plekhanov on one side argued for strict party membership with control vested in the educated elite, while Martov and Trotsky advocated for less stringent requirements, only requiring material support and personal participation to make someone a member of the party.[20]
In October 1905, Nicholas II drafted the October Manifesto. Though conceding to free speech and a truly representative government, the party and the populace were skeptical and on January 9th marched on the Czar’s winter. The unarmed procession was fired upon resulting in hundreds of casualties.[21] Following the revolt the first Duma, (representative body) was formed. Later in the year the Third Party Congress convened and the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was formalized. At the Fourth Party Congress the Bolsheviks formed the “Bolshevik Center” which was the governing body of the Bolshevik faction. The Mensheviks, trying to match their opponent blow for blow aligned themselves with other minority groups, increasing their size and making themselves the majority, albeit a less influential one.
From 1905-1917 four Dumas were formed. Each was relatively short lived and ultimately exercised
----
[1] G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought Vol. III, Part I: The Second International 1889-1914 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1960), 392.
[2] Mortimer Chambers et al., The Western Experience 9th ed. Vol. II: Since the 16th Century (Boston; McGraw Hill, 2007), 728.
[3] G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought Vol. III, Part I: The Second International 1889-1914 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1960), 395.
[4] Cole, 394.
[5] Narodniks, the group that sponsored the paper was responsible for the assignation of Alexander II in 1881. Narodnik philosophies used Mikhailovsky’s emphasis on the creative role of the individual to justify acts of terrorism. [5] G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought Vol. III, Part I: The Second International 1889-1914 (London: Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1960), 404.
[6] Cole, 398.
[7] Cole, 404.
[8] Cole, 407.
[9] Cole, 405.
[10] Cole, 411.
[11] Cole, 415.
[12] Vladimir Illich Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (Peking; Foreign Languages Press, 1965), 37.
[13] Cole, 424.
[14] Cole, 425.
[15] Cole, 417.
[16] Cole, 418.
[17] Cole, 421.
[18] Vladimir Ilich Lenin, The Tasks of The Proletariat in our Revolution (London: Martin Lawrence, 1932), 13.
[19] Cole, 427-428.
[20] Cole, 435-440.
[21] Mortimer Chambers et al., The Western Experience 9th ed. Vol. II: Since the 16th Century (Boston; McGraw Hill, 2007), 864.
BACK TO SOCIAL DEMOCRACY